The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of Rs 2 lakh for misleading advertisements on Shubhra Ranjan IAS Study. An official release said the decision was taken to protect and promote the rights of consumers as a class and ensure that no false or misleading advertisement is made of any goods or services which contravenes the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In view of the violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the CCPA, headed by Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare, and Commissioner Anupam Mishra, has issued an order against Shubhra Ranjan IAS Study for misleading advertisement regarding UPSC Civil Service Exam 2023.

Advertisement

Coaching Institutes and online edtech platforms use pictures and names of successful candidates to influence prospective aspirants (consumers), without disclosing the courses opted by such candidates or the fees paid by them and the length of the course so attended. Shubhra Ranjan IAS Study in its advertisement made the following claims: “13 students in Top 100” “28 students in Top 200” “39 students in Top 300” in UPSC CSE 2023 Further, the advertisements prominently depicted photographs and names of the successful candidates of UPSC Civil Service Exam 2023, without mentioning any information about the specific course opted by such candidates.

Shubhra Ranjan IAS Study prominently displayed successful candidates’ names and pictures and simultaneously advertised various types of courses provided by them on its official website. However, the information with respect to the course opted by the said successful candidates in UPSC Civil Service exam 2023 was not disclosed in the advertisement.

The institute offers nearly 50+ courses. However, the DG Investigation report found that most of the claimed successful students took the Political Science and International Relations (PSIR) crash course and test series which comes into play after clearing Preliminary examination.

It is the right of the consumer to be informed about the specific course that successful candidates had taken from the coaching institute to make it into the final selection of CSE. For the potential consumers, this information would have contributed in their making an informed choice about the course to opt for their success at CSE.

By deliberately concealing information about the specific course opted by each of the successful candidates, the institute made it look like all the courses offered by it had the same success rate for the consumers, which was not right.